Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President ``after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'' At the outset, I believe it would be useful to review the events that led up to the requirement for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. At the time that Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied its neighbor Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq. After Iraqi forces had been ousted from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition and active hostilities had ended, but while coalition forces were still occupying Iraqi territory, the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, conducted a review of Iraq's history with weapons of mass destruction and made a number of decisions in April 1991 to achieve its goals, including a formal cease fire. With respect to Iraq's history, the Security Council noted Iraq's threat during the Gulf War to use chemical weapons in violation of its treaty obligations, Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons, Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations. After reviewing Iraq's history, the Security Council decided that ``Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision'' of its weapons of mass destruction programs and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and conditioned the lifting of the economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq's meeting its obligations, including those relating to its weapons of mass destruction programs. To implement those decisions, the Security Council authorized the formation of a Special Commission, which has come to be known as UNSCOM, to ``carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself'' and requested the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out similar responsibilities for Iraq's nuclear program. Additionally, the UN Security Council decided that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction and called for UNSCOM to conduct ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance. The detailed modalities for these actions were agreed upon by an exchange of letters in May 1991 that were signed by the UN Secretary General, the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq. Thus, Iraq unconditionally accepted the UN Security Council's demands and thereby achieved a formal cease-fire and the withdrawal of coalition forces from its territory. Mr. President, UNSCOM has sought to carry out its responsibilities in as expeditious and effective way as possible. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler and his teams, however, have been confronted with Iraqi obstacles, lack of cooperation and lies. As UNSCOM has noted in its own document entitled ``UNSCOM Main Achievements'': ``UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.'' Mr. President, I will not dwell on the numerous instances of Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations. I would note, however, that in accepting the February 23, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by the UN Secretary General and Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, that ended Iraq's prior refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to perform their missions, the UN Security Council warned Iraq that it will face the ``severest consequences'' if it fails to adhere to the commitments it reaffirmed in the MOU. Suffice it to say that on August 5, 1998, Iraq declared that it was suspending all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activities. In response, on September 9, 1998, a unanimous UN Security Council condemned Iraq's action and suspended its sanctions' reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise their full range of activities. Within the last week, Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister refused to rescind Iraq's decision. Throughout this process and despite the unanimity in the UN Security Council, Iraq has depicted the United States and Britain as preventing UNSCOM and the IAEA from certifying Iraqi compliance with its obligations. To review, Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied Kuwait, it's armed forces were ejected from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition forces, active hostilities ceased, and the UN Security Council demanded and Iraq accepted, as a condition of a cease-fire, that its weapons of mass destruction programs be destroyed and that such destruction be accomplished under international supervision and permanent monitoring, and that economic and weapons sanctions remain in effect until those conditions are satisfied. Mr. President, by invading Kuwait, Iraq threatened international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. By its failure to comply with the conditions it accepted as the international community's requirements for a cease-fire, Iraq continues to threaten international peace and security. By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition. Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy. Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, ``You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.'' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved. Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: ``responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'' I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, October 9, 1998. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq. Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General. Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity. As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices. We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein. We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs. In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Sincrely, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski. Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Again, reserving the right to object, I obviously won't, would the majority leader then, in the UC that you are working on, make provision, then, for 30 minutes for morning business for me at the end of whatever else is going to be done here?

Mr. LEVIN. Will the majority leader withhold just for a moment?

Mr. LEVIN. During this quorum call, would anyone be inconvenienced if some of us who want to speak as in morning business be allowed to speak?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I indicated before to the majority leader, I have about a 30-minute speech for morning business. He indicated that I could do this at the end of the proceedings tonight. But since the floor is now not occupied--I understand Senator Lieberman may be on his way--I thought I would proceed now, and it is my intention to do so. If Senator Lieberman comes, then we will try to make whatever accommodation we can.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished managers of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998 have agreed to incorporate into the managers' package several provisions which I have proposed. These cover Michigan projects, Great Lakes Basin matters, and contaminated sediments. I am hopeful that the House will expedite passage of this important matter before concluding legislative business this session. There are several specific items in the managers' package that will benefit Michigan. They include an Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study of improvements to the Detroit River waterfront between the Belle Isle Bridge and the Ambassador Bridge, as part of the ongoing revitalization of that area. The Corps will also prepare studies for flood control projects in St. Clair Shores and along the Saginaw River in Bay City to see what types of structures will be necessary to protect shorelines and property. Similarly, the Corps will consider reconstruction of the Hamilton Dam flood control project. And, lastly, the Corps will review its denial of the city of Charlevoix's request for reimbursement of construction costs that it incurred in building a new revetment connection to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor. Mr. President, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to my proposal, now in the amended bill, that the Great Lakes Basin program be named the ``John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.'' This is a small tribute to our colleague for the hard work that he has done to promote and protect the Great Lakes Basin region. As Democratic Co-Chairman of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force and as a former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he has long advocated common sense and efficiency in government. He has sought to coordinate Federal research, regulatory, and conservation activities in the Great Lakes region for many years in areas as diverse as shipping and wildlife restoration. The provisions in the ``John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program'' are intended to echo his fine work and enhance coordination in Corps' programs in the region and in Federal activities relating to diversion and consumption of Great Lakes Basin waters. The specifics of the program, including a special study on the western Lake Erie watershed, are as follows: Strategic Plans. The Army Corps of Engineers is directed to develop a framework for their activities in the Great Lakes basin to be updated biennially. Many Army Corps of Engineers divisions have developed and use such strategic plans. Development of such a strategic plan for the Great Lakes Basin has never been more important than at present, given the potential implications of the restructuring plans for the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Great Lakes Biohydrological Information. The Army Corps of Engineers is directed to inventory existing information relevant to the Great Lakes biohydrological system and sustainable water use management. The Corps is then to report the results of this inventory, including recommendations on ways to improve the information base, to Congress, the International Joint Commission and the eight Great Lakes states. The report will consider and update Congress on the status of the issues and the recommendations described in two IJC reports regarding diversion and consumptive uses of Great Lakes waters and Lake levels. This information will be crucial in ongoing debate regarding the continued attempts to export or divert Great Lakes surface and ground water out of the Basin. Great Lakes Recreational Boating. The amendment directs the Army Corps of Engineers to submit to Congress a report based on existing information detailing the economic benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes Basin. As many of my colleagues may know, despite Congress' repeated objections, consecutive Administrations have unwisely sought to limit the Corps' role in dredging so-called recreational harbors. Clearly, these harbors' value should and can be recognized in the cost-benefit analysis conducted in making dredging decisions. Water Use Activities and Policies. The amendment would allow the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes States to develop interstate guidelines to improve the consistency and efficiency of State-level water use activities and policies in the Great Lakes Basin. Sea Lamprey Control Barriers. The amendment clarifies that the Army Corps of Engineers may use Section 1135 funds to construct sea lamprey barriers at any site in the Great Lakes. As my colleagues may know, the invasive sea lamprey species was introduced into the Great Lakes through construction of the Welland Canal, making control of the lamprey clearly a Federal responsibility. Sea lamprey barriers are among the most cost-effective methods available for the control of lamprey in the Great Lakes and use of Corps expertise, especially in conjunction with existing projects, helps to make this management tool as effective and efficient as possible. Study on Western Lake Erie watershed. This regional study for the western basin of Lake Erie is a pilot project for efforts in the region to understand the synergistic relationships within a natural watershed and the interplay of human economic, agricultural and commercial development with environmental quality objectives. Mr. President, once again, I'd like to recognize Senator Glenn for his dedication and devotion to the Great Lakes region, even when it might have caused him some political difficulties at home. He was a staunch supporter of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, which came under great attack from various places around the Lakes. Senator Glenn happened to have some of the most vociferous opponents in his state, but that never stopped him from advocating for uniform water quality criteria across the Basin. All of us in the Great Lakes will always be indebted to him for his support on that measure. By the way, my colleagues might be interested to know that implementation of the Great Lakes Initiative is proceeding nicely in all eight Great Lakes States. Mr. President, the managers have incorporated another very important matter which I have been pressing them and Federal agencies on for some time. The subject is aquatic contaminated sediments and they are a potential threat to public and environmental health across the country. EPA has begun to document this problem in the National Inventory of Contaminated Sediments released earlier this year. That inventory identifies 96 areas of probable concern which Congress and the public should be concerned about and which require appropriate remedial actions. The provisions which I requested will require the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to finally activate the National Contaminated Sediment Task Force that was mandated by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. I am hopeful that convening this Task Force will encourage the Federal agencies to work together to combat this problem and create greater public awareness of the need to address contaminated sediments. And, the Task Force will be required to report to Congress on Federal actions to clean up contaminated sediments around the country. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has assured me by letter that the Army will support the convening of the Task Force. As the managers may know, WRDA 92 required the creation of a Task Force to advise EPA and the Corps in implementation of the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act, to review and comment on specific issues, including the extent and seriousness of the problem and research and development priorities, and to make recommendations on prevention and source control. WRDA 92 required the Task Force to report to Congress with findings and recommendations within two years of enactment of that Act. Though some time has elapsed, the Task Force's responsibility to comply with that reporting requirement and other statutory responsibilities has not. I fully expect to see that the Task Force complies with its statutory requirements under WRDA 92 and this Act and will be working to make that happen. I will be doing whatever I can to help the Task Force provide Congress with useful advice on contaminated sediment management in advance of reauthorization of Superfund, the Clean Water Act, RCRA and other pertinent laws. Mr. President, contaminated sediments can pose a serious and demonstrable risk to human health and the environment. Persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances in contaminated sediment can poison the food chain, making fish and shellfish unsafe for humans and wildlife to eat. Potential costs to society include long term health effects such as cancer and children's neurological and IQ impairment. Contamination of sediments can also interfere with recreational uses and increase the costs of and time needed for navigational dredging and subsequent disposal of dredged material. Since enactment of the Great Lakes Critical Program Act of 1990, and the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act of 1992, the Nation has gained considerable experience and understanding about sediment contamination. As I have mentioned, the report on the Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, required under section 503 of the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act of 1992, identified 96 areas of probable concern where contaminated sediments pose potential risks to fish and wildlife, and to people who eat fish from them The Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program under the Clean Water Act, and subsequent studies, have demonstrated that there are some effective tools for determining the extent and magnitude of sediment contamination, for assessing risk and modeling the changes that would result from remedial action, and for involving the public in solutions. Prompt response after discovery of sediment contamination can prevent subsequent spread through storm events and minimize environmental impacts and response costs. Unfortunately, the resources of the Federal Government have not been brought to bear on these problems in a well coordinated fashion. That is the principle reason for pursuing the convening of the Task Force. But, we also need a better understanding of the quantities and sources of sediment contamination, to prevent subsequent recontamination and minimize the recurrence of these costs and impacts, and to get a handle on the extent of the public health threat. To that end, my provision requires the Task Force to document in a report the status of remedial action on contaminated sediments around the country, including a description of the authorities used in cleanup, the nature and sources of sediment contamination, the methods for determining the need for cleanup, the fate of dredged materials, and barriers to swift remediation. The response to releases of contaminated sediments should reflect the risk associated with the contamination, and remedies should reflect the beneficial reuse of contaminants. To respond to the serious environmental risks that can be posed by contaminated sediment sites, the Federal Government should use funding and enforcement authorities of existing programs to help remediate these sites. Last year, the National Research Council's Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediment published a report on Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies. That report highlights the problems with the existing regulatory framework for addressing sediment contamination. While the EPA has put out a ``Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy'', the regulatory issues raised by the NAS clearly go beyond the scope of the authority of any single agency. It is likely that the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the next biennial Water Resources Development Act will all be under consideration in the next Congress. Prompt development of an interagency strategy that addresses the problems identified by the survey and the regulatory and technological issues raised by NAS could make a substantial contribution to helping inform decisionmakers on appropriate legislative changes. It is important that the agencies and the Task Force pay close attention to the analysis and recommendations in the 1997 NAS report. The NAS report clearly sets out the problems posed by the existing statutory and regulatory framework. It is also clear on the stakes involved, observing that: ``The presence of contaminated sediments poses a barrier to essential waterway maintenance and construction in many ports, which support approximately 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade.'' NAS identifies the ``complex and sometimes inconsistent regulatory framework'' as one of the key challenges in managing contaminated sediment, observing that ``at least six comprehensive acts of Congress, with responsibilities spread over seven Federal agencies, govern sediment remediation or dredging operations in settings that range from the open ocean to the freshwater reaches of estuaries and wetlands.'' Many of the applicable authorities were not originally designed to address contaminated sediments, and questions of risk and costs are not considered in a consistent way across the statutes. The NAS also observes that . . . current laws and regulations affecting contaminated sediments can impede efforts to implement the best management practices and achieve efficient, risk-based, and cost- effective solutions. This is a shortcoming of the governing statutes, not a criticism of regulatory agencies charged with implementing them. The timeliness of decision making is also an issue, given that it typically takes years to implement solutions to contaminated sediments problems. In the committee's case histories, the delay between the discovery of a problem and the implementation of a solution ranged from approximately 3 to 15 years. However, there are no risk-based cleanup standards for underwater sediments. Insufficient attention to risks, costs, and benefits impedes efforts to reach technically sound decisions and mange sediments cost-effectively. Similar inattention to risk is evident in the permitting processes for sediment disposal. NAS concludes that In the committee's view, cost-effective management of contaminated marine sediments will require a multifaceted campaign as well as a willingness to innovate. The Task Force is set up to involve different agencies and levels of government, including States that have pioneered innovative approaches for intergovernmental collaboration. The NAS report did not actually make specific recommendations for statutory language changes. That would be the function of the Task Force and would require the participation and input of the affected Federal agencies on the Task Force and the representatives on the Task Force from the States, public interest groups with a demonstrated interest in the matter, and from the ports, agriculture or manufacturing sectors. Also, the existence and advice of the Task Force should help eliminate Congress' perennial need to deal with contaminated sediments in minute detail for individual watersheds. Mr. President, I want to be clear that convening the Task Force should not provide an excuse for delay or more inaction. The NAS has already spoken against delay. The report observes that: . . . there is no reason to delay urgent projects in anticipation of new technological solutions; decision makers should continue to try to make incremental improvements in the overall management process,. . .'' and that, ``The need to meet these challenges [posed by contaminated sediment management] is urgent.'' I appreciate my colleagues assistance in incorporating this and the other matters I have discussed into the managers' amendment to S. 2131. I look forward to working with them to get these important provisions signed into law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as one who three times in the last 15 years helped to reauthorize the independent counsel law, I have been giving a great deal of thought to the way in which the independent counsel statute has functioned in Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton. The important purpose behind the statute was to have an objective person investigate credible allegations of violations of criminal law against top Administration officials in order to give confidence to the public that the Attorney General, an appointee of the President, was not put in the position of investigating those allegations. But what if the person selected to investigate those allegations by the special court, the three-judge court that appoints independent counsels, violates the restrictions in the very act creating him? What could be done to rein in such an independent counsel? Some will dismiss these questions and more specific ones related to Mr. Starr's investigation of the President as defending the President's actions, actions which were irresponsible and immoral, and which by the President's own acknowledgment, hurt those closest to him and which damaged the body politic of the nation. But dismissing such questions would be wrong, because the actions of the independent counsel in this case, and the implications his actions have on the future of the independent counsel law and, indeed, upon the rule of law, demand our attention as well. The authors of the law in 1978 attempted to put limits on the independent counsel in the law itself and provided, for instance, that the independent counsel must follow the policies of the Justice Department and that the Attorney General could fire an independent counsel for cause. The Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law in large part because of those provisions, stating that: . . .the Act does give the Attorney General several means of supervising or controlling the prosecutorial powers that may be wielded by an independent counsel. Most importantly, the Attorney General retains the power to remove the counsel for ``good cause,'' a power that we have already concluded provides the Executive with substantial ability to ensure that the laws are ``faithfully executed'' by an independent counsel. . . . In addition . . . the Act requires that the counsel abide by Justice Department policy unless it is not ``possible'' to do so. During each of the reauthorizations of the law, in 1983, 1987, and 1994, Congress was concerned about the potential for an open-ended, unlimited investigation by an independent counsel, and we adopted various restrictions in an effort to prevent that. We added, for example, a number of budgetary restrictions, reporting requirements, and a biannual GAO audit. And, we gave the Special Court the authority to terminate an independent counsel if it found the independent counsel's work to be ``substantially completed.'' Those of us involved in those reauthorizations worked in a bipartisan manner to put additional checks and limits on these investigations. We did so in the hope that we could preserve the core principle of the law--that someone outside of the Department of Justice could investigate credible allegations of criminal violations by high level Executive Branch officials. Our goal has always been to have independent counsels be like ordinary prosecutors, treating high-level government officials no better and no worse than a U.S. Attorney would treat a private citizen. The specific questions that need to be addressed are whether Mr. Starr has met that standard or whether he has violated important requirements of the independent counsel law, whether he has ignored his responsibility not to abuse the grand jury process and whether he has carried out the duty of all prosecutors as established by the Supreme Court not just to prosecute but to prosecute fairly. role of prosecutor A prosecutor's responsibility is unique in our criminal justice system. As articulated by Justice Sutherland in the 1935 Supreme Court case of Berger v. the United States, a prosecutor's responsibility is not to do whatever it takes to get a conviction, but to ``do justice.'' Justice Sutherland wrote: The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. . .He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. the starr report Let me address first Mr. Starr's decision to include in his report graphic details of the sexual encounters between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Starr argues that he had to be so graphic in order to rebut the President's contention that the President didn't have ``sexual relations'' with Ms. Lewinsky as defined in the Paula Jones case. But that claim is a pretext, not a reason. There is no justification for Mr. Starr's inclusion of each and every detail of these sexual encounters in the report. He could have easily referred the readers to pages in the record to support his assertions. I've never read a document by a prosecutor that is so needlessly salacious. Mr. Starr's report also violated the fairness expected by the American people by presenting information on possible impeachable offenses in a biased and prejudicial manner. Under the Constitution, the House has sole responsibility to decide whether or not the President should be impeached. The independent counsel does not have a statutory responsibility to argue for impeachment. His responsibility is to forward ``information'' to the Congress that ``may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' The independent counsel law says: An independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information which such independent counsel receives, in carrying out the independent counsel's responsibilities under (the independent counsel law) that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. That's it. That's the extent of the independent counsel's responsibility. The law doesn't give an independent counsel the responsibility to argue for impeachment. But the report in effect did that. The independent counsel law doesn't give the independent counsel the responsibility to draw conclusions from the information he presents to Congress. But the report did that as well. For example, in the introduction to the report, Mr. Starr states unequivocally that ``(t)he information reveals that President Clinton'', and then it lists seven conclusions such as: ``lied under oath. . .''; ``attempted to obstruct justice. . .''; ``lied to potential grand jury witnesses.'' In other parts of the report, Mr. Starr makes conclusory statements such as these: ``the President's testimony strains credulity''; ``the President's denials--semantic and factual--do not withstand scrutiny''; ``the President's claim . . .is belied by the fact . . .''; ``the President could not have believed that he was `telling the truth. . .;' '' ``the President lied under oath three times.'' The report not only is full of conclusions and arguments, it is also biased in its presentation because it omits exculpatory evidence. For instance, the report omits Ms. Lewinsky's clear statement before the grand jury that ``no one ever asked [her] to lie'' and she ``was never promised a job'' for [her] silence. (Appendices, Part 1, page 1161.) The report doesn't mention that Ms. Lewinsky testified that when she asked President Clinton whether she should get rid of his gifts to her in light of the Jones subpoena, his response was, ``I don't know, `` and that she left his office without ``any notion'' of what she should do with the gifts. (Appendices, Part 1, page 1122.) The report omits Ms. Lewinsky's statement that when she asked the President if he wanted to see her affidavit in the Paula Jones case before she filed it, he said he didn't want to see it. (Appendices, Part 1, page 1558) grand jury report in watergate Contrast the Starr report with the grand jury report in the Watergate case in 1974 to the House Judiciary Committee which was then investigating the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon. Judge Sirica was asked to rule on whether the grand jury's evidence in the Watergate matter could be forwarded to the House of Representatives since it was engaged in impeachment proceedings. Judge Sirica approved the transmittal of the grand jury report in the Watergate matter, because he determined that: It draws no accusatory conclusions. . . It contains no recommendations, advice or statements that infringe on the prerogatives of other branches of government. . ..It renders no moral or social judgments. The Report is a simple and straightforward compilation of information gathered by the Grand Jury, and no more. . . The Grand Jury has obviously taken care to assure that its Report contains no objectionable features, and has throughout acted in the interests of fairness. The Grand Jury having thus respected its own limitations and the rights of others, the Court ought to respect the Jury's exercise of its prerogatives. (In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972, Grand Jury Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, March 18, 1974. ) What a far cry the Watergate grand jury report was from Mr. Starr's. The Starr Report violates almost every one of the standards laid out by Judge Sirica in the Watergate case. Even prior to the report Mr. Starr acted in other ways inconsistent with the independent counsel law and the rules governing the grand jury. violations of the independent counsel law No person is above the law. That principle is the touchstone of our system of government. And the rule of law holds true for both the prosecutor and the prosecuted. Kenneth Starr has placed himself above the law in a number of ways even before he sent his report to Congress. exceeding limited jurisdiction The Supreme Court was clear in 1988 when it reviewed the constitutionality of the independent counsel law that the specific and narrow jurisdiction granted to each independent counsel by the appointing court is key to the law's constitutionality. The Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson held that, ``the independent counsel is an inferior officer under the Appointments Clause, with limited jurisdiction and tenure and lacking policymaking or significant administrative authority.'' ``Limited jurisdiction.'' ``Lacking policymaking authority.'' Did Kenneth Starr respect this limitation in the law that created his office? I believe not. Again, the most fundamental limit in the law is that an independent counsel can investigate only that which is within the scope of jurisdiction granted by the court that appoints him. Mr. Starr was appointed to office in August 1994 to investigate Whitewater. Three months earlier, in May of 1994, Paula Jones had filed her civil law suit against the President accusing him of sexual harassment. Mr. Starr's grant of authority was completely unrelated to the Paula Jones case and made no reference to it. But in April of 1997, according to a June 25, 1997, article by Bob Woodward and Susan Schmidt in the Washington Post, FBI agents and prosecutors working for independent counsel Starr questioned Arkansas state troopers about their knowledge of any extramarital relationships Mr. Clinton may have had while governor and questioned a ``number of women whose names have been mentioned in connection with President Clinton in the past.'' The two troopers who served on the governor's personal security detail, Roger Perry and Ronald Anderson, are quoted in the article as follows: ``In the past, I thought they were trying to get to the bottom of Whitewater,'' Perry said in an interview with The Washington Post. ``This last time, I was left with the impression that they wanted to show he was a womanizer. . ..All they wanted to talk about was women.'' He said he was interviewed in April (1997) for more than 1\1/2\ hours by an attorney in Starr's office and an FBI agent. Perry, a 21-year veteran of the Arkansas state force, said he was asked about the most intimate details of Clinton's life. ``They asked me if I had ever seen Bill Clinton perform a sexual act,'' Perry said. ``The answer is no.' '' . . .. . .``They asked me about Paula Jones, all kinds of questions about Paula Jones, whether I saw Clinton and Paula together and how many times,'' Perry said. . . ..Anderson said he refused to answer the questions about personal relationships Clinton may have had with women. ``I said, `If he's done something illegal, I will tell you. But I'm not going to answer a question about women that he knew because I just don't feel like it's anybody's business. . .' '' What justification did Mr. Starr provide to support these inquiries in April of 1997? The Washington Post said deputy Whitewater counsel John Bates defended Mr. Starr's action by saying that the purpose, as restated by the Post, ``is to ensure that a full and thorough investigation is conducted that leaves no avenue unexplored.'' Mr. Starr's appointment was completely unrelated to the Paula Jones case. Yet here he was inquiring in significant detail in April 1997, leaving ``no avenue unexplored,'' about possible relationships Mr. Clinton had with various women, including Paula Jones. And the New York Times reported on Sunday, October 4th, that contrary to Mr. Starr's statements in his report to the House that his office first learned of the Lewinsky affair from Linda Tripp on January 12th, the Starr office had been contacted by Jerome Marcus, a Philadelphia lawyer with ties to the Paula Jones legal team, at least a week earlier. The earlier contact between Mr. Marcus and Mr. Starr's office has now been confirmed by Mr. Starr's spokesman. The call from Mr. Marcus and his relationship to the Jones case was not, according to the New York Times, disclosed to the Justice Department when Mr. Starr sought to expand his jurisdiction. So when, on January 12, 1998, Linda Tripp, who had been subpoenaed in the Paula Jones lawsuit, contacted Mr. Starr's office and told the office she had tapes of Monica Lewinsky describing an affair with President Clinton, the Starr office had already gone beyond its jurisdiction into the Paula Jones case. Ms. Tripp apparently told Mr. Starr's office on January 12, 1998, that she had tapes of several recorded telephone conversations containing allegations that the President had told Ms. Lewinsky to lie in the Paula Jones case. (Ms. Lewinsky later testified before the grand jury that she was lying to Ms. Tripp when she had said that on the tape.) Because secretly tape-recording phone conversations is a felony under Maryland law (Md. Code Ann. Section 10-402), Ms. Tripp discussed immunity from prosecution for her own actions. According to the FBI summary of Ms. Tripp's interview with Starr's office on January 12th, independent counsel Starr not only discussed with Ms. Tripp a grant of immunity under federal law and promised Ms. Tripp that his office ``would do what it could to persuade the State of Maryland from prosecuting Ms. Tripp for any violations of that state wiretapping law'' (Page 223 of the Appendices to the Starr Report), Starr's office actually promised Ms. Tripp immunity. ``OIC attorneys. . .advised Tripp she would be granted federal immunity by the OIC for the act of producing the tapes to the OIC.'' (FBI 302, interview with Linda Tripp, 1/12/98) Again, with no jurisdiction to investigate matters involving the Jones case, Mr. Starr instructed FBI agents to equip Ms. Tripp with a hidden microphone and surreptitiously record a four-hour conversation with Ms. Lewinsky the following day, January 13th. Where did Mr. Starr get the authority to enter into immunity negotiations with Ms. Tripp on January 12th? Where did Mr. Starr get the authority to instruct FBI agents to wire Ms. Tripp and tape her conversation with Ms. Lewinsky? Mr. Starr didn't have the authority and he didn't have the jurisdiction on January 12th. (He didn't receive the authority and jurisdiction until days later when he went to the Attorney General to obtain it.) He thereby ignored the statutory limitations on his authority--the limits that confined him to matters involving Whitewater and investigations into the White House use of FBI files and the White House Travel Office which by that time the court had also authorized. In doing so, he used some of the most powerful tools given to a prosecutor--immunity from criminal prosecution and electronic surveillance by the FBI--to expand his reach beyond what the law permitted him to do. It was only after he gave immunity to Ms. Tripp and used FBI agents to monitor four hours of conversation between Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky on January 13th that independent counsel Starr sought authority to expand his jurisdiction. On Thursday, January 15, he contacted Attorney General Reno's office on an emergency, expedited basis to get her to request the special court to authorize the added jurisdiction. The emergency was apparently caused by the threat of a story about the Lewinsky affair becoming public in an upcoming ``Newsweek'' article. A letter by Mr. Starr to Steve Brill, publisher of ``Brill's Content,'' in March 1998 suggests that Mr. Starr based his request for expanded jurisdiction primarily on the FBI tape between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp (again, a tape that the Starr office had no authority to obtain). The special court granted Mr. Starr jurisdiction in the Lewinsky matter on January 16th. (2) Failure to Follow Justice Department Policies Mr. Starr also violated the independent counsel law's requirement that he follow the policies of the Department of the Justice. 28 U.S.C. 594(f)(1) states that independent counsels ``shall'' comply with the ``written or other established policies of the Department of Justice.'' The only exception to this rule is where compliance with Departmental policies would be ``inconsistent with the purposes of the statute'' such as, for example, compliance with a policy requiring the permission of the Attorney General personally to take a specific act. Barring this exception, the law is clear that independent counsels must comply with Justice Department policies. The Supreme Court placed great emphasis on the law's requirement that an independent counsel is bound by the policies of the Department of Justice and that the independent counsel law ``does not include any authority to formulate policy for the Government or the Executive Branch.'' Yet there are at least five instances in which Mr. Starr appears to have failed to follow Justice Department policy: discussing immunity with Ms. Lewinsky without contacting her attorney of record; subpoenaing the Secret Service; subpoenaing news organizations; subpoenaing Ms. Lewinsky's mother; and subpoenaing the notes of the attorney for the late Vince Foster (arguing that the attorney-client privilege terminates upon the death of the client). First, when Mr. Starr confronted Monica Lewinsky on the afternoon of January 16th he acted inconsistently with Justice Department policy. 28 CFR 77.8 explicitly prohibits federal prosecutors from offering an immunity deal to a target without the consent of the target's legal counsel. Yet Mr. Starr's staff, knowing she was represented by counsel, confronted Monica Lewinsky in their first contact with her, outside the presence of her counsel, for the express purpose of offering her an immunity deal. Indeed, the independent counsel's office made immunity contingent upon her not contacting her counsel. (Appendicies, Part 1, pages 1143-1154) Until recently, our understanding of what happened on January 16th when Ms. Lewinsky was first confronted by Mr. Starr's office was based on speculation, but now we have a description of what happened under oath from Ms. Lewinsky herself. It's a description of the intimidation of a woman whose crime was having a consensual affair with the President and trying to cover it up. I want to read from the grand jury transcript, because Ms. Lewinsky's description is so chilling and speaks for itself. Lewinsky Transcript Juror: . . .I guess the other thing that we wanted to ask you a little bit about is when you were first approached by Mr. Emmick and his colleagues at the OIC. Can you tell us a little bit about how that happened?. . . Mr. Emmick: Maybe if I could ask, what areas do you want to get into? Because there's--you know--many hours of activity-- Juror: Well, one specific--okay. One specific question that people have is when did you first learn that Linda Tripp had been taping your phone conversations? [Ms. Lewinsky answers that she learned when she was, and these are her words, ``first apprehended.'' The transcript continues.] Mr. Emmick: Any other specific questions about that day? I just--this was a long day. There were a lot of things that-- A Juror: We want to know about that day. A Juror: That day. A Juror: The first question. A Juror: Yes. A Juror: We really want to know about that day. Mr. Emmick: All right. . . [Ms. Lewinsky then describes meeting Ms. Tripp at the Ritz Carlton.] Ms. Lewinsky: She was late. I saw her come down the escalator. And as I--as I walked toward her, she kind of motioned behind her and Agent------and Agent------presented themselves to me and---- A Juror: Do you want to take a minute? Ms. Lewinsky: And flashed their badges at me. They told me that I was under some kind of investigation, something to do with the Paula Jones case, that they--that they wanted to talk to me and give me a chance, I think, to cooperate, maybe. . . I told them I wasn't speaking to them without my attorney. They told me that that was fine, but I should know I won't be given as much information and won't be able to help myself as much with my attorney there. So I agreed to go. I was so scared. (The witness begins crying.) [Then Ms. Lewinsky becomes so upset with Mr. Emmick, an attorney with Mr. Starr who was present when Ms. Lewinsky was confronted by Mr. Starr's office on January 16th, that she asks him to step out of the grand jury room, which it appears he finally does. Ms. Immergut, another attorney with Mr. Starr's office then takes over the questioning of Ms. Lewinsky and it turns into a question/answer format.] Q: Okay. Did you go to a room with them at the hotel? A: Yes. Q: And what did you do then? Did you ever tell them that you wanted to call your mother? A: I told them I wanted to talk to my attorney. Q: Okay. So what happened? A: And they told me--Mike (Emmick) came out and introduced himself to me and told me that--that Janet Reno had sanctioned Ken Starr to investigate my actions in the Paula Jones case, that they--that they knew that I had signed a false affidavit, they had me on tape saying I had committed perjury, that they were going to--that I could go to jail for 27 years, they were going to charge me with perjury and obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury and witness tampering and something else. Q: And you're saying ``they'', at that point, who was talking to you about that stuff? A: Mike Emmick and the two FBI guys. And I made Linda stay in the room. And I just--I felt so bad. [She then discusses why she feels bad and the question/answer session continues.] Q: I guess later just to sort of finish up. I guess, with the facts of that day, was there a time then that you were -- you just waited with the prosecutors until your mother came down? A: No. Q: Okay. A: I mean, there was, but they--they told me they wanted me to cooperate. I asked them what cooperating meant it entailed, and they told me that--they had--first they had told me before about that--that they had had me on tape saying things from the lunch that I had had with Linda at the Ritz Carlton the other day and they--then they told me that I--that I'd have to agree to be debriefed and that I'd have to place calls or wear a wire to see--to call Betty and Mr. Jordan and possibly the President. And-- Q: And did you tell them you didn't want to do that? A: Yes. I--I--I remember going through my mind, I thought, well, what if--you know, what if I did that and I messed up, if I on purpose--you know, I envisioned myself in Mr. Jordan's office and sort of trying to motion to him that something had gone wrong. They said that they would be watching to see if it had been an intentional mistake. Then I wanted to call my mom and they kept telling me that they didn't--that I couldn't tell anybody about this, they didn't want anyone to find out and that they didn't want--that was the reason I couldn't call Mr. Carter [Ms. Lewinsky's attorney of record at the time], was because they were afraid that he might tell the person who took me to Mr. Carter. They told me that I could call this number and get another criminal attorney, but I didn't want that and I didn't trust them. Then I just cried for a long time. A Juror: All while you were crying, did they keep asking you questions? What were you doing? Mr. Lewinsky: No, they just sat there and then--they just sort of sat there. A Juror: How many hours did this go on? Ms. Lewinsky: Maybe around two hours or so. And then they were--they kept saying there was this time constraint, there was a time constraint, I had to make a decision. And then Bruce Udolf came in at some point and then--then Jackie Bennett came in and there were a whole bunch of other people and the room was crowded and he was saying to me, you know, you have to make a decision. I had wanted to call my mom, they weren't going to let me call my attorney, so I just--I wanted to call my mom and they--Then Jackie Bennett said, ``You're 24, you're smart, you're old enough, you don't need to call your mommy.'' And then I said, ``Well, I'm letting you know that I'm leaning towards not cooperating.'' you know. And they had told me before that I could leave whenever I wanted, but it wasn't--you know, I didn't--I didn't really know--I didn't know what that meant. I mean, I thought if I left then that they were just going to arrest me. And so then they told me that I should know that they were planning to prosecute my mom for the things that I had said that she had done. (Ms. Lewinsky begins crying; Ms. Immergut asks if Ms. Lewinsky wants to take a break, and she says she does. The questioning then resumes.) A Juror: Monica, I have a question. A minute ago you explained that the reason why you couldn't call Mr. Carter was that something might be disclosed. Is that right? Ms. Lewinsky: It was--they sort of said that--you know, I-- I--I could call Frank Carter, but that they may not --I think it was that--you know, the first time or the second time? A Juror: Any time. Ms. Lewinsky: Well, the first time when I asked that I said I wasn't going to talk to them without my lawyer, they told me that if my lawyer was there they wouldn't give me as much information and I couldn't help myself as much, so that -- A Juror: Did they ever tell you that you could not call Mr. Carter? Ms. Lewinsky: No. What they told me was that if I called Mr. Carter, I wouldn't necessarily still be offered an immunity agreement. A Juror: And did you feel threatened by that? Ms. Lewinsky: Yes. What could be clearer than that? If Ms. Lewinsky called her lawyer, she wouldn't necessarily still be offered an immunity agreement and she felt ``threatened.'' That's what Monica Lewinsky testified to under oath about what happened on January 16th when she was confronted by independent counsel Starr's office. Look how Mr. Starr described the same event in his June 16th letter to Steven Brill months before Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony was publicly released: ``Ms. Lewinsky was asked to cooperate with the investigation. She telephoned her mother, Marcia Lewis, who took a train from New York City to confer with her daughter. During the five hours while awaiting her mother's arrival, Ms. Lewinsky drank juice and coffee, ate dinner at a restaurant, strolled around the Pentagon City mall, and watched television. She was repeatedly informed that she was free to leave, and she did leave several times to make calls from pay telephones. After her mother arrived, discussions resumed with agents and attorneys. Ms. Lewinsky, after talking with another family member by phone, chose to retain William Ginsburg, a longtime family friend who specializes in medical malpractice law in Southern California. As they left the Ritz Carlton, both Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Lewis thanked the FBI agents and attorneys for their courtesy. Recent media statements by one of her attorneys alleging that she was mistreated are wholly erroneous.'' That's what Mr. Starr says happened. The discrepancy is enormous. Ms. Lewinsky ``was so scared''; she was told she faced 27 years in prison; at one point she was told she couldn't call her own attorney; at another point she was told that if she called her lawyer, an immunity offer would not be likely; she cried for long time; she felt if she left the room she would be arrested; and she felt ``threatened.'' All of this occurred without the knowledge or presence of her attorney of record in apparent violation of Justice Department policy. Consider also what Mr. Starr's office was trying to get Ms. Lewinsky to do. She says under oath, before the grand jury, that they wanted her ``to agree to be debriefed and that [she'd] have to place calls or wear a wire to . . . call Betty and Mr. Jordan and possibly the President.'' In a letter from Mr. Starr to Steven Brill, Mr. Starr said, ``This is false. This Office never asked Ms. Lewinsky to agree to wire herself for a conversation with Mr. Jordan or the President.'' Mr. Starr goes on to criticize Mr. Brill for making such a claim by saying, ``You cite no source at all; nor could you, as we had no such plans.'' But a memo from Starr's office itself of an interview with Ms. Lewinsky provides confirmation that Ms. Lewinsky was asked on January 16th to wear a wire. The relevant part of the interview summary says: ``Lewinsky, who was 24 years of age when approached by the OIC on January 16, 1998, was not prepared to wear a wire and/ or record telephone conversations. The request to do so was a lot to handle that day and Lewinsky relied on her advisors, who included her parents and Bill Ginsberg.'' (Appendices, Part 1, page 1555) In Mr. Starr's report to the House of Representatives he states, ``In the evaluation of experienced prosecutors and investigators, Ms. Lewinsky has provided truthful information.'' If Ms. Lewinsky is telling the truth when she swore that Mr. Starr's office tried to get her to tape phone conversations with Mr. Jordan or the President, then Mr. Starr was not speaking truthfully in his letter. And if Ms. Lewinsky is telling the truth that would mean Mr. Starr intended to surreptitiously record the President of the United States in order to develop evidence against him. The second example of Mr. Starr acting inconsistently with Department of Justice policy involves the testimony of the Secret Service in the Lewinsky matter. Over the strong objection of the Justice Department and for the first time in the nation's history, Mr. Starr asked a federal court to force Secret Service personnel to disclose how they operate and what they have observed of the President in the course of protecting him. No federal prosecutor had ever before asked a court to compel such testimony from a Secret Service agent, according to the Justice Department. Discounting arguments regarding the safety of the president and effective operation of Secret Service personnel, Mr. Starr issued subpoenas which were in violation of Justice Department policy and in violation of Mr. Starr's legal obligation to comply with Justice Department policy. Moreover, Mr. Starr argued in his report to the House that the President's ``acquiescence'' in the Justice Department's opposition to the Secret Service subpoenas was evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the President presumably because, Mr. Starr argues, the Justice Department's opposition to the Secret Service subpoena was ``interposed to prevent the grand jury from gathering relevant information.'' This claim by Mr. Starr is so preposterous, particularly in light of the letter of support for the position of the Secret Service from former President Bush, that it lays bare the excessive zeal of this investigation. The fact that the court eventually upheld the subpoenas issued by Mr. Starr does not vindicate his position. His pursuit of subpoenas of Secret Service agents may not have violated the law, but it violated the policy of the Justice Department which Mr. Starr is bound to follow under the clear requirements of the independent counsel law. Third, Mr. Starr issued subpoenas to news organizations to obtain nonpublic information from their news gathering efforts despite Justice Department regulations which caution federal prosecutors to take a number of steps before subpoenas are issued in order to safeguard freedom of the press. The regulations require trying elsewhere for the information, negotiating voluntary agreements to provide the information first, and, in a final provision that one court held was not binding on Mr. Starr, obtaining the Attorney General's permission prior to issuing a subpoena. Despite the established policy discouraging media subpoenas, independent counsel Starr issued subpoenas to news organizations on several occasions. When ABC News objected to one such subpoena, Mr. Starr stated in a court pleading that the Justice Department's ``regulations of this type do not govern an Independent Counsel.'' The fourth example of Mr. Starr not following Justice Department policy is the subpoena to Monica Lewinsky's mother. He issued this subpoena despite the U.S. Attorneys' Manual policy that ``the Department will ordinarily avoid seeking to compel the testimony of a witness who is a close family relative of . . . the person upon whose conduct grand jury scrutiny is focusing.'' And fifth, in this same vein, but not related to the Lewinsky matter, Mr. Starr subpoenaed the notes of the late Vince Foster, arguing in an unprecedented case before the Supreme Court that the attorney-client privilege expires upon the death of the client. The Justice Department's general policy is that federal prosecutors ``will respect bona fide attorney-client relationships, where possible, consistent with its law enforcement responsibilities and duties.'' The Supreme Court rejected Mr. Starr's policy-setting position. Violating the independent counsel law's limited grant of authority, ignoring established Justice Department policies (indeed making the claim that the independent counsel isn't governed by the Justice Department policies even though the independent counsel law says he is), Mr. Starr has made a mockery of the independent counsel process and the statutory constraints designed to insure that the independent counsels obey the same rules that apply to all other federal prosecutors. use of the grand jury I also have concerns about Mr. Starr's use of the grand jury. Was Mr. Starr properly using the grand jury when he subpoenaed a federal employee who was on his personal time when he called friends in Maryland from his home to congratulate them on demanding an investigation of Linda Tripp for possible illegal taping of telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky? Robert Weiner was subpoenaed within 24 hours of the calls and wasn't even interviewed first or contacted by the independent counsel as an initial step. Among other questions, prosecutors asked him to reveal the future plans of Maryland Democrats. How could that possibly be an appropriate use of the grand jury? Was Mr. Starr properly using the grand jury when he subpoenaed Sydney Blumenthal to testify before the grand jury on what he was telling reporters about Mr. Starr's office because Mr. Starr believed Mr. Blumenthal was trying to intimidate his staff? The answer is, ``no.'' A person should be able to criticize a prosecutor to the press without fearing a grand jury subpoena. There are numerous allegations that Mr. Starr and his staff inappropriately revealed grand jury information to third parties in violation of rules governing grand jury secrecy. Rule 6(e) of the rules of federal criminal procedure prohibit prosecutors and grand jurors from discussing the proceedings before the grand jury. Mr. Starr has explained communicating with the press in the August 1998 edition of ``Brill's Content'' as ``countering misinformation that is being spread about our investigation in order to discredit our office and our dedicated career prosecutors.'' Mr. Brill also quotes Mr. Starr as saying that as long as the independent counsel is providing reporters with information about ``what witnesses tell FBI agents'' or the independent counsel's office ``before they testify before the grand jury'' it is not subject to Rule 6(e). If such a standard were adopted, there would be little practical restraint on the grand jury information a prosecutor could discuss with the press. Allegations of improper leaks by the Starr office were presented to Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, and the Associated Press reported in August of this year that Judge Johnson ruled that there is a prima facie case of violations of the grand jury secrecy rules. The Associated Press further reported that ``the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Starr's efforts to stop Johnson's investigation, allowing her to continue to collect evidence and hold a hearing to determine if Starr's office should be punished.'' conflicts of interest Finally, there are the apparent and real conflicts of interest Mr. Starr has created in the operations of his office. It started at the time of his appointment. Mr. Starr was an active partisan who had served as Finance Chair for a Republican Congressional campaign in Virginia and who had himself recently contemplated a run for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate in Virginia. Within weeks of the filing of the Paula Jones civil suit in May 1994, Mr. Starr appeared on television and espoused a legal position against the President. (He also began discussions with the Independent Women's Forum about filing a legal brief on Paula Jones' behalf in opposition to efforts by the President to have the litigation postponed.) The appointing court informed my staff it was not aware at the time of the appointment that Mr. Starr had expressed a position against the President in the Paula Jones case. As senior Democrat on the Senate subcommittee charged with oversight of the independent counsel law, I urged the court shortly after Mr. Starr's appointment to make a fuller inquiry into Starr's apparent lack of objectivity about the President and based upon what the court learned, reconsider Mr. Starr's appointment. The court issued an order stating that, once it had exercised its appointment authority, it was without power to reconsider appointment of an independent counsel. The New York Times called on Mr. Starr to withdraw, while five past presidents of the American Bar Association warned the court that it needed to repair its appointment procedures to ensure a selection process with the reality and appearance of objectivity. While in office, Mr. Starr only reinforced the initial concerns about his impartiality and judgment. For example, one month before the 1996 election, he accepted a speaking engagement at Pat Robertson's university at the request of Pat Robertson, including a press conference with Mr. Robertson, a visible and vocal opponent of the President with a history of public statements raising questions about Vincent Foster's death, then being investigated by Mr. Starr. In 1997, Mr. Starr announced his intention to accept a position at Pepperdine University at a program funded with millions of dollars provided by Richard Scaife, another declared opponent of the President and a chief funder of several organizations working on investigations into President Clinton, including the Paula Jones case. (He subsequently reversed course and stayed in office.) During his employment with the federal government as independent counsel, Mr. Starr continued his law practice at the firm of Kirkland and Ellis. He continued to receive his full annual remuneration as a partner and continued to handle a number of very high profile cases, a number of which involved issues where Mr. Starr represented the position directly contrary to the Clinton Administration position. In February 1998, Mr. Starr's law firm apparently sent the Chicago Tribune copy of an affidavit of a witness in the Paula Jones case that was to be filed in that case--before the affidavit had been filed in court. While Mr. Starr's firm denied assisting Jones' legal team, it also resisted responding to a subpoena issued by the President's counsel relative to the sending of that affidavit. Also, the press reported that a former counsel to Paula Jones, Joseph Cammarata, admitted that he had sought legal advice on several occasions from one of the firm's partners, Robert Porter. So while Mr. Starr was working as independent counsel and continuing to serve as a partner at Kirkland and Ellis, one of his law partners allegedly was providing legal advice to the counsel in the Paula Jones case, in possible violation of the independent counsel law which prohibits ``any person associated with a firm with which (an) independent counsel is associated'' from representing ``any person involved in'' any investigation conducted by such independent counsel. conclusion The position that Mr. Starr occupies is a position of public trust and duty, designed to be free from politics and partisanship, a position with powerful tools for investigation, unlimited but for the parameters of the independent counsel law and for the common sense and good judgment of the person holding the office. Kenneth Starr has acted with no effective limits, because although he is subject to the ultimate authority of the Attorney General, given her power to fire him for cause, she is effectively powerless to rein in his excesses because her discharge of him would be so reminiscent of the ``Saturday Night Massacre'' in which Archibold Cox, the prosecutor investigating Richard Nixon, was fired. (In fact, the Attorney General has already been threatened with impeachment simply because she has taken a stand to protect her ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions with respect to campaign finance abuses.) I have urged the Attorney General, by letter, to go to court to enforce the requirement that Mr. Starr abide by the policies of the Department of Justice. She has not responded and perhaps could not because, I am speculating here, it could make it even more difficult for her to finally act to restrain Mr. Starr should she decide to do so, as it might appear that she was doing so under pressure. Some Democrats are reluctant to speak out against Mr. Starr's abuses of power out of fear that they will be perceived as defending the President's actions. Some Republicans I have spoken with, who feel Mr. Starr has gone too far, won't say so publicly because of the negative reaction it might engender in some circles in which they must function. It will be difficult in this environment to salvage the legitimate goal of the independent counsel law when it expires next year. Any hope of achieving the radical surgery needed to prevent a prosecutor from abusing the powerful tools provided an independent counsel will depend on Democrats and Republicans who still believe in the legitimate purpose of the independent counsel law working together. Only such a bipartisan effort has a chance of stitching into the independent counsel law's fabric, now stretched beyond recognition, limits on the exercise of an independent counsel's power which are so essential in our constitutional design of checks and balances to prevent abuses in the exercise of governmental power. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend of mine and a great leader in my home state of Michigan, Bruno Nowicki. On October 11, 1998, Bruno's friends and family will help him celebrate his 90th birthday at a celebration at the Polish Century Club. Bruno Nowicki is well known in Michigan and in his native Poland for his efforts to commemorate and celebrate the contributions of Polish people to the United States and to the world. He has designed monuments to Polish-American heroes of World War II and Vietnam and to Revolutionary War Generals Pulaski and Kosciuszko. Bruno Nowicki has also been a strong supporter of public libraries, and served on the Board of Governors of the Detroit Public Library from 1971 until 1994. He melded his interests in promoting Polish culture and supporting public libraries by arranging for statues, mosaics and busts of prominent figures in Poland's history to be displayed in the Detroit Main Library and the Hamtramck Public Library. Bruno worked with artist Zygmunt Dousa of the University of Krakow to design the Polish Room of the Ethnic Conference and Study Center at the Wayne State University in Detroit. He is a co-founder of the Polish Riverfront Festival, which provides assistance to children's hospitals in Poland. I was proud to work with Bruno Nowicki in 1993-1994 on an issue especially close to his heart, promoting chess to students in schools. An avid chess player who participates in (and has won) tournaments in the U.S., Bermuda and Cuba, he believes that the skills children develop by learning to play chess can be applied to everyday life. A four-year study of school chess players confirmed Bruno Nowicki's belief. The study found that chess helps children build self-confidence and self-worth, dramatically improves children's ability to think rationally, and results in higher grades, especially in English and Math. Bruno provided me with important information which I used in drafting an amendment to the 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which allows State educational agencies to use certain Title III funds to promote instruction in chess as a tool for teachers to use to motivate students to develop critical thinking skills, self-discipline and creative resolution methods. Mr. President, Bruno Nowicki has demonstrated time and again his commitment to his community. He is truly a person who has touched the lives of thousands of people. I know my colleagues join me in wishing Bruno a happy 90th birthday and in commending him for his remarkable dedication to community service.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a remarkable example of community commitment taking place in my home state of Michigan this fall, the United Way Torch Drive. This year will mark the 50th United Way Torch Drive in metropolitan Detroit. The Torch Drive was officially kicked off in 1949 by General Mark Clark with a goal of raising $8,550,000. Many people doubted that this goal could be reached. During that period of time, similar fundraising campaigns in other cities were falling short of their goals. However, the people of the Detroit area proved the skeptics wrong, contributing almost $9.3 million to the Torch Drive in three weeks. The metropolitan Detroit Torch Drive was the first such drive in the country, and its success has been a model for cities throughout the country. The Detroit Torch Drive has been helped by local and nationally recognized Americans from every walk of life. Business leaders like Max Fisher and Lee Iacocca have lent their time and talents to the Drive. Entertainers like Jackie Gleason, Audrey Hepburn and the Supremes have donated time as well. National and local media stars, from Walter Cronkite to J.P. McCarthy have made themselves available to help. And sports stars, from Hockey Hall of Fame player Gordie Howe to current Detroit Pistons star Grant Hill, pitch in as needed. But as impressive as this list of famous people is, United Way representatives will tell you that it is the dedication and heart of the people of metropolitan Detroit which make the Torch Drive a success year after year. Thanks to them, the United Way is able to support more than 130 agencies in metropolitan Detroit, providing assistance to people in need and solutions to long term problems like homelessness, substance abuse, hunger and mental illness. Mr. President, I have many reasons to be proud to be a Detroiter. One of the strongest reasons for my pride is the generosity and warm- heartedness of my neighbors. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the tens of thousands of people who have made the annual United Way Torch Drive such an overwhelming success over the past 50 years, and in looking forward to the next 50 years of giving help and hope to people in need in metropolitan Detroit.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a true urban innovator, a woman who has devoted her ``retirement'' years to solving the many challenges that confront urban communities across the nation, Ms. Evelyn Dukes. The urban community of northeastern Detroit has greatly benefitted from the work of Ms. Evelyn Dukes. Her involvement with urban and neighborhood renewal began with the ``Adopt-A-Park'' program. In her neighborhood, Ms. Dukes daily observed gangs, drug users, and loiterers frequenting a parcel of land that was formerly a small community park, but had become a symbol of fear and apathy. Fortunately, Ms. Dukes did not view Brookins Park in the same manner. As an organizer for numerous Block Clubs and Neighborhood Watch Groups, Ms. Dukes saw the area as an opportunity to bring the community together and reclaim a vital recreational park. By calling on organizations from the city's Park and Recreation Department to the Detroit Piston Basketball Organization, Ms. Dukes' vision for Brookins Park became a reality. Today the land is used by community residents for picnics, reunions, and birthday parties, and Ms. Dukes is on to her next project, Skinner Park. Ms. Dukes is also involved in her neighborhood organization and is an active member in the Citizen Band Radio Patrol organization. While on patrol, she documents dangerous situations and possible criminal actions. Evelyn is President of the Ninth Precinct Community Relations Board and is very involved in the City Wide Roundtable, an organization of Detroit leaders who meet on a regular basis to discuss issues and solutions involving public service, safety, and awareness. At 73, Evelyn Dukes' personal commitment to her neighborhood and city are an inspiration to everyone. She is truly a model for community involvement, and her efforts and achievements clearly set Ms. Dukes apart as an exemplary citizen. She has been honored by being selected as only one of seven people in the country to receive the National Crime Prevention Council's Ameritech Award of Excellence in Crime Prevention. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Ms. Evelyn Dukes on receiving this award and thanking her for the stalwart dedication she has shown to improving her community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased Senators Lott and Gorton have accepted my amendment to the substitute to S. 852, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1998. Senators Feinstein and Bryan have joined me in offering this amendment which will remedy concerns that the substitute bill would have preempted state laws that provide greater consumer protection with regard to the titling of salvage vehicles. My colleagues may have heard from the state attorneys general about their opposition to the state preemption impact of the substitute bill. Mr. President, I have worked with the state attorneys general to address their concern. Simply put, my amendment will allow states with higher standards to keep them. S. 852 without my amendment would establish national titling standards that act as a ceiling rather than a floor because, except for a few narrow exceptions, the legislation would have preempted existing tougher state standards for when a vehicle must be declared salvage, rebuilt salvage, non-repairable or flood damaged. For example, Michigan has a stronger consumer protection standard for when a vehicle must be declared ``non-repairable'' which would be preempted by S. 852. In Michigan, if a vehicle is damaged 91 percent or more of its value, its title must be branded ``scrap'' or non- repairable. S. 852 defines non-repairable as a vehicle which has no resale value except as a source of parts or scrap and it excludes flood vehicles. That is considered a weaker and more subjective definition than Michigan's, but under the substitute to S. 852 without my amendment, Michigan must accept the lower or weaker national standard. In addition, Michigan's salvage definition includes motorcycles, motor homes, and flood vehicles and S. 852 exempts them. Again, the substitute legislation would force Michigan to abide by a standard that excludes these types of vehicles. My amendment would allow Michigan to retain these provisions of its vehicle titling code. To avoid the preemption of state laws providing greater vehicle titling protection to consumers, my amendment would establish a national or federal standard for when a vehicle's title must be branded with the term ``salvage'', ``rebuilt salvage'', ``non-repairable'', and ``flood'' damaged. Under my amendment, the federally required standard would become a floor because no state opting in would be allowed to have a lower standard. However, my amendment would allow states that choose to provide more protection to consumers to retain or enact standards that may be considered more stringent. Therefore, under the substitute, with my amendment, consumers would be protected against unscrupulous people who take the title of a vehicle that has been in a wreck to a state with lower standards in order to give the vehicle a clean title to hide the fact that it was damaged. There will now be a national standard that each participating state will have to meet. But it will be a national floor rather than a ceiling because states can retain or enact tougher standards if they so wish. Establishing a federal standard leaves state salvage law intact and not preempted. I view this legislation, as amended, as a big step forward in protecting the consumer from the unscrupulous practice known as ``title washing'' because it gives us a relatively high national standard that did not previously exist. At the same time, it is not watering down any state standard that may be even more protective of the consumer than the federal standard established by this legislation. I would have preferred that the federal standard contain a tougher measurement for when a damaged vehicle would be declared ``salvage''. However, the majority of states that have a percentage based salvage definition use the 75% number contained in this legislation and it is appropriate we go with the definition of the majority of states. This legislation, as amended, does not preempt state law and the national standard that it sets is where the majority of states are, in terms of the percentage used in the definition of ``salvage'' vehicle. Mr. President, few would dispute the need to stop the current practice of selling rebuilt wrecks to unsuspecting buyers. The objective of this legislation is to make it more difficult for the unscrupulous seller to conceal the fact that a vehicle has been in an accident by transferring the vehicle's title in a state with lower standards then where the vehicle is ultimately sold. This legislation, as amended, accomplishes this objective and with my amendment, it represents important consumer protection.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his assistance and, as an original cosponsor of S. 659, I applaud his efforts to move this important legislation expeditiously.

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to ask the distinguished sponsor of the Senate bill if he could comment on whether or not the bill, H.R. 1481, is intended to provide Indian Tribes in the Great Lakes region with any fish and wildlife management authority beyond that contained in existing treaty provisions and as recognized by Federal courts.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, after whom this defense authorization bill is named. Section 1512 of this bill requires the President to certify to Congress 15 days prior to any export to the People's Republic of China of missile equipment or technology, as defined in the Annex to the Missile Technology Control Regime, that such export is not detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry, and that such export will not measurably improve China's missile or space launch capabilities. The intent of this section is not to prevent the export of commercial communications satellites to the PRC, consistent with U.S. law and national security and foreign policy interests, nor to harm our domestic satellite industry. The purpose of this section is to ensure that exports of such satellites and related technology to China will not harm U.S. security. As long as sufficient export controls are in force and are being enforced, such exports are consistent with our national security. Furthermore, this certification requirement for exports to China is not intended to prevent the export of commercial technology for emergency repair of civilian equipment, such as navigation systems required for safe flight of passenger aircraft. If a U.S.-made aircraft requires emergency repair or replacement of its navigation system while in China, we would not want to delay such required repair unreasonably. I wish to ask the Chairman if he shares this view of Section 1512.

Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to join with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in bringing to the floor the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. It is truly a fitting honor for our chairman that this conference report which is named in his honor has been signed by not only all the Senate conferees on both sides of the aisle, but also by all conferees from the House National Security Committee on both sides of the aisle. I am sure that I speak for all of our colleagues in saying just how much we appreciate the leadership that Senator Thurmond has provided on this bill, the fair and even-handed manner in which he has managed the committee not just on this bill, but as long as he has been a chairman of this committee, as well as how much we appreciate the lifelong dedication that he has brought to the national defense. We look forward to many, many more years of working with him. He has expressed his appreciation for having the bill named after him. I just want to tell him that it is my very strong personal feeling that it has been a pleasure for me to work with him to bring forward measures such as this that are so critical to the national defense. We will miss him as chairman, but we will not miss him as a member of the committee, because he will continue to be an active member of the committee. Mr. President, this is also the last defense authorization act for several of our colleagues on the committee, as Senator Thurmond has noted. Senator Glenn, Senator Coats and Senator Kempthorne will all be leaving us at the end of this year. All three have made great contributions to the work of the committee and to the national security of our country. They will be greatly missed, and I know many of us will have more to say about that during the next few days. The conference report that we bring to the Senate today is the product of more than 6 months of work, including a full 2 months in conference with the House. Overall, we have reached a bipartisan conference report that advances the security of our country in the best interests of the men and women in uniform. I am particularly pleased that on a series of issues that were important to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy and to the administration, we have been able to eliminate or modify positions that would have led to a veto. First, we eliminated a series of House provisions that would have barred any exports of satellite or related technology for launch in China, and also the provision which we eliminated also would have prohibited participation in launch failure investigations. So we have eliminated a number of provisions. However, the conference report does provide that the licensing of applications to launch satellites in China will be returned to the State Department. However, that return will be delayed until March 15, 1999. In the interim, there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to plan for a more timely and orderly licensing process. The only effective difference since January of 1996 between the licensing being done by State or Commerce has been the long delays that exist in the State Department's processing of license applications. The delay in the effective date of the transfer from Commerce to State will give the administration time to take steps to speed up the State Department's licensing process and provide the new Congress with an opportunity to review the transfer in a less politically heated atmosphere after the elections. It is critical for American security that American satellites continue to be launched in large numbers, both because, as Senator Bob Kerrey has pointed out, most of our intelligence information comes from open sources, such as satellites, and because the satellite transmission of programming is critically important to forcing open closed societies whose dictatorships threaten American interests. The compromise embodied in the bill before us should protect our national security interests by helping to ensure that American satellites will continue to be launched in appropriate numbers and in a timely and secure manner. Second, we have eliminated a House provision that would have prohibited the Secretary of Energy from even considering the less costly of the two options for renewed tritium production. It would have achieved this result by prohibiting the production of tritium in a commercial facility, even though tritium is widely used in commercial products and is not a special nuclear material like uranium or plutonium. The provision in the bill will provide a level playing field for the selection of an option for future tritium production by delaying the implementation of the decision made by the Secretary of Energy to select either option until October 1, 1999, the beginning of the next fiscal year. This approach will provide Congress an opportunity to review the Secretary's decision--whatever it may be--before it is implemented. It will have no adverse impact on our national security because we will not need a new source of tritium for several years. The Secretary's decision could not be implemented in any case until funding is approved by Congress, and Secretary Richardson has indicated that delaying implementation of his decision until October 1 of next year will have ``minimal impact'' on future tritium production. Third, we eliminated a House provision that would have prohibited gender-integrated training at the basic training level in all three military services. This prohibition was opposed by the uniformed military, opposed by a majority of the Senate, and it would have led to a veto by the President. The bill does contain provisions that, (a), direct the Secretaries of the military departments to provide for separate and secure housing for male and female recruits with sleeping areas separated by permanent walls and served by separate entrances; and, (b), prohibit afterhours access to sleeping areas by unescorted members of the opposite gender. These provisions are consistent with, and would in fact codify, the current policies of the Department of Defense. Fourth, a Senate provision was dropped that would have made it harder for the Secretary of Defense to downsize and close unneeded military facilities. I recognize that many Members on both sides of the aisle supported this provision. However, the provision was strongly opposed by the civilian and uniformed leadership of the Department of Defense and would have led to a veto. I am personally hopeful that in the next session of Congress we will at least authorize one additional round of base closings. Mr. President, I am also pleased with the outcome on several issues that have been important to the Department of Defense, including the adoption of a Senate provision authorizing Bosnia funding on an emergency basis; the decision to fund cooperative threat reduction programs at a level close to the one proposed by the administration; and, most importantly, the decision to fund a 3.6-percent pay raise for our men and women in uniform. Nothing is more important to our national security than their well-being and high morale. Mr. President, this conference report is the product of hard-fought compromise, and I cannot say, of course, that I support every provision in it. I would have preferred that we not fund seven C-130s and one F-16 that the Department of Defense says it doesn't want and doesn't need. I would have preferred that we not cut into the readiness of our Armed Forces by reducing the Department's operations and maintenance accounts below the administration's budget request. I would have preferred that we not include a House provision that unfairly singles out a single facility by prohibiting the China Ocean Shipping Company from leasing a facility at the Long Beach Shipyard that was closed in the last base closure round. I would have preferred that we not reach outside of our jurisdiction to resolve a complicated tax dispute between two States. On balance, I think we have succeeded in reaching a fair resolution on the issues in the conference. I am convinced that we have a very solid compromise of the major issues, and I hope the President will sign the bill. Again, I will conclude by thanking our chairman, Senator Thurmond, for the open and the bipartisan manner in which he conducted the conference on this bill. Senator Thurmond and his staff have made every effort to include the minority at every stage of the deliberations. I also thank the chairman and ranking minority member of the House National Security Committee, Congressman Spence and Congressman Skelton, for their cooperation in bringing the conference to a successful conclusion. Of course, none of this could have been accomplished without our staffs. I want to express the appreciation we all feel on the committee to the staffs of the Armed Services Committee--both the majority and minority staffs--for the extraordinary effort they put into this bill and this conference. It was a long, long conference. It just simply would not have been possible to achieve the result we did without the outstanding work of David Lyles, Les Brownlee, and their dedicated supporting cast. I also extend my thanks to the staff of the House National Security Committee and the House and Senate legislative counsels for their help in preparing this large bill. Mr. President, it is a good conference report. It strengthens our national security. I know our colleagues will be pleased to join me in supporting the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee for helping to clarify the intent of this provision. C-130 Tragedy

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wanted to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Senate the outstanding and continuing service of a fine Air Force officer, General William F. Moore, USAF. For almost three years, General Moore has served as Director of Special Programs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In this capacity, he was responsible for coordinating planning, budgeting, and management of very sensitive Department of Defense special access classified programs. In fulfilling these duties, General Moore has had frequent contact with the leadership and members of the defense oversight committees in Congress. I believe that General Moore has executed these duties in an exemplary manner. General Moore always operated in a very forthcoming manner, was sensitive to the needs of Congressional oversight committee members, and made great strides in improving the Congressional understanding and coordination of special access programs. I would point out that our former colleague, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, also recognized this track record by awarding General Moore the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. General Moore also had a distinguished career in the Air Force before coming to that position. Among his many assignments, he has served as the Program Executive Officer for Bombers, Missiles, and Trainers within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; as the System Program Director for the Small ICBM; and in various positions with the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-air Missile (AMRRAM), Peacekeeper Missile, and Drone and Remotely Piloted Vehicles programs. General Moore is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, the Air War College, and the Defense Systems Management College. He also took an M.B.A. degree from the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania. General Moore has been recently named as Deputy Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a very important position. There is no doubt in my mind that General Moore will be as diligent a steward in his new position as he has been as Director of Special Programs. We are all fortunate to have a man of his professionalism and ability in these positions, and I want to thank him both for his many years of service and wish him every continued future success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution commemorating the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932- 1933. During the period 1932-1993, the repressive policies of the government of the former Soviet Union, directed by Joseph Stalin, led to the deaths of at least seven million Ukrainians. Stalin's war on the Ukraine sought to eradicate its unique religious, cultural and political characteristics for the purpose of achieving complete Soviet domination. For the most part, the famine and its victims can be traced to the forced collectivization of agricultural production. Collectivization was central to Stalin's efforts to break the will of the Ukrainian land-owning peasants and a conscious part of his plan to bring about an end to Ukrainian nationalism, ultimately leading to total Communist control. Stalin's forced collectivization of agriculture changed the face of Ukraine. Stalin repeatedly raised the quota productions for agriculture, so much so that the vast majority of Ukrainian agricultural production was being transferred from the region. These increased production quotas for exports depleted the amount of food for the people of Ukraine. The quota increases began a vicious cycle of less food which led to the exhaustion of farm workers, which in turn led to even smaller harvests and ultimately famine. Harvest yields were further diminished when the peasants were forced to abandon their accustomed ways of farming and use collectivized farming techniques. During this period, food became so scarce that people were left to scavenge for what little they could find. There are horrible accounts of people being sentenced to death for stealing sheaves of corn. The fields once owned and worked by the peasants were now supervised by armed guards, while an environment of suspicion and fear consumed the Ukrainian people. Individuals who did not quickly show the signs of starvation were often accused of hoarding food. At the same time that the Ukrainian people were risking their lives for the smallest amount of food to sustain themselves and their families, the Soviet Union was denying that there was a crisis and refusing to allow assistance from international relief organizations to be delivered in the region. Throughout this turbulent period, Stalin further exacerbated the situation by working to turn Ukrainians against one another. The famine followed an assault on the Kulaks, or petty bourgeoisie, and a purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia. While this tragic period of Ukrainian history is often difficult to revisit, we must do so in order to ensure that the world will not to endure a tragedy such as this again. When children in the United States study the dark periods of human history, it is important that the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 be included. It is also important to note that despite the tragedy the people of Ukraine endured at the hands of Stalin's government and many years of Soviet domination, Ukraine has re-emerged with its vibrant cultural and religious traditions intact and strong. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this resolution commemorating the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine and I urge all Senators to show their support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, H.R. 3412, as amended by the Senate Small Business Committee, has broad bipartisan support. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3412 makes permanent the Small Business Innovation Research Program SBIR, which was originally established in 1982 and reauthorized and expanded in 1992. This competitive program has a well deserved reputation for success and it is fitting that it be made permanent. H.R. 3412 also addresses a problem pointed out by GAO in its April, 1998 SBIR report regarding the lack of uniformity in defining the term ``extramural budget''. GAO found that participating agencies had different interpretations of what should be included in their extramural research budgets. This is a problem because a participating agency's extramural budget is the base from which that agency's SBIR funding is calculated. To resolve any discrepancies, H.R. 3412, as amended by the Senate Small Business Committee, directs OMB to define the term ``extramural budget'' and ensure that it is applied uniformly throughout the government. Finally, this bill includes a provision I authored which authorizes existing procurement outreach programs of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies to conduct program outreach efforts for the SBIR program out of funds that are already available to them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Travelers Aid Society of Detroit, which is celebrating its 75th Anniversary on October 15, 1998. Travelers Aid has been an important part of Metropolitan Detroit's network of community service organizations since its inception in 1923. Travelers Aid was first created as an arm of the YWCA to assist young women who had recently settled in Detroit. In 1923, as the City of Detroit was growing by leaps and bounds, the Travelers Aid Society of Detroit was chartered as an independent institution to serve people who became stranded or lost. Since its chartering as an independent institution, Travelers Aid has broadened its activities from its original mandate to include assisting men and women, the homeless, runaway youths, victims of domestic violence, children traveling alone, the physically challenged and travelers at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Travelers Aid has developed innovative programs, like Homeward Bound and the Supportive Housing Opportunities Program, which have helped thousands of people recover from homelessness. Each year, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Travelers Aid helps 250 runaway children find their way back home and introduces 150 adopted babies from foreign lands to their new American families. Along with the City of Detroit and the Lovelight Foundation, Travelers Aid sponsors the annual ``A Special Gift'' Christmas party for 2,500 homeless children at Detroit's Cobo Hall. On October 15, 1998, many people from my hometown will join together at the historic Wayne County Building to celebrate Travelers Aid's 75 years of service to the community. This celebration is being chaired by N. Brewster Broder, with the assistance of Honorary Chair Nettie Seabrooks and Honorary Co-Chairs Charlie Williams and Larry Givens. Community Service awards will be given to four outstanding individuals whose commitment to improving their community is truly inspiring. The award recipients are Aaliyah, an Oscar nominated recording artist; Delphine Fairbanks, a tireless volunteer at Detroit Metropolitan Airport; Geneva Williams, COO of United Way Community Services; and William McKenzie of Michigan Rehabilitation Service. Mr. President, the men and women of the Travelers Aid Society of Detroit exemplify so many of the qualities that make our country great. Their dedication to their community, compassion for those in need and innovative problem-solving skills affect the lives of tens of thousands of people each year. I invite my colleagues to join me in expressing gratitude to the Travelers Aid Society of Detroit for the important services they have provided for the past 75 years, and in offering congratulations to the four Community Service Award recipients on this special occasion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.